Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An article at Ars summarizes a study into how simply seeing pictures can alter what we believe, even if the pictures don't provide any information about the topic at hand (abstract). Researchers asked true-or-false questions to a group of test subjects about whether a minor celebrity was still alive. When they provided a picture of the celebrity, more people evaluated the statement as 'true' than when no picture was provided. The researchers then switched the question, asking whether it was true or false that the celebrity was dead. Again, the subjects shown a picture were more likely to respond with 'true.' Experiments also showed this phenomenon wasn't limited to questions about people, but general knowledge as well.
"The authors spend a bit of time discussing why this sort of truth bias might arise. In cases where we have rich information—a photo or detailed description of something—it's easier to pull additional information out of our memory. So, even if a photo doesn't tell us much about whether the person is alive, it does make it easier to retrieve relevant information on them—if they're wearing a suit in the photo, we might reason they're a political or financial figure, etc. When the information flows that readily, we're more likely to conclude that we're familiar with the question that's being posed, and will then tend to conclude it's true."

In logic, it's trivial to flip any statement so that your default presumption of falsehood becomes the exact opposite given a different statement

"John is a liar" -> False, he must be an honest man!

"John is an honest man" -> False, he must be a liar!

Same rule, opposite outcomes based on a completely arbitrary starting point.

When asked to evaluate a true/false statement, a person has 3 options, not 2. True, False, and "I Don't Know". Asserting a true statement to be false is just as wrong as asserting a false statement to be true. If one lacks the information to evaluate the veracity of a statement, the correct default is to acknowledge one's ignorance, instead of making a false claim.